The judgment emphasizes the requirement of material evidence and witness support to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This appeal is filed by the State through Lokayukta challenging the judgment of acquittal dtd. 7/11/2014, passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge and Special Court, Koppal, in Special C.C. (P.C.) No.45/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused/respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) as well as Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original rankings occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:

a) That the accused No.1 Sharanappa was a Village Accountant of Juratagi village in Gangavati Taluk. The complainant claims that the land bearing Sy.No.27 situated at Juratagi was standing in the name of Yamanamma as a minor guardian of complainant and his brother and after attaining majority they have moved an application to the Special Tahasildar, for mutating their names by deleting the name of minor guardian.

b) It is further alleged that accused is said to have demanded Rs.8, 000.00 to do official favour and in this regard the complainant has lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a crime was registered and trap was laid down after drawing entrustment mahazar. But however the trap was unsuccessful on 20/10/2010 and 21/10/2010 but it is alleged that on 3/11/2010 trap was successful and the tainted amount was said to have been recovered from the custody of accused No.2 who alleged to have received it on behalf of accused No.1. Then the Investigating Officer has drawn trap mahazar and he has also recorded the statement of witnesses and then submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. The accused were arrested by the Investigating Officer and were produced before the Special Judge and they were enlarged on bail.

c) Subsequently the learned Special Judge has furnished the copies of the prosecution papers and he has framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

d) The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and also placed reliance on 38 documents and 11 material objects. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, Ex.D.1 was got marked.

e) After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case of prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial and they did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of their evidence. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have submitted their detail written say denying the case of the prosecution and thrusting the amount in the hands of accused No.2 who was not a public servant who attended the office pertaining to his work.

f) After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment has acquitted both the accused. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, this appeal is being filed.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta and learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the judgment of acquittal is erroneous and it is contended that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence in this regard. He would also contend that the work was pending and initial demand was for Rs.10, 000.00 which was reduced to Rs.8, 000.00 and the demand and acceptance conversation was recorded in voice recorder. He would also contend that accused No.2 was independent person engaged by accused No.1 and though the complainant has turned hostile, the other material witnesses examined by the prosecution in the form of shadow witness and second pancha as well as Investigating Officer clearly supports the case of the prosecution. He would also contend that the sta